They really do care about us

July 22, 2016 § 38 Comments

Every once in a while I let my guard down and think positive thoughts. Recently, the city of Rancho Palos Verdes committed to developing a bike master plan through its traffic safety committee. I was at the meeting where that decision was made and it was awesome. Kumbaya and etc. and such.

Then further letting down my guard, the city of Palos Verdes Estates was receptive at the committee level and at the city council level to installing some Bikes May Use the Fuggin’ Lane signs. The vote occurs on July 27, so it’s not a done deal, but the process has been positive and invigorating.

Finally, when I was on the verge of recriminating myself as a crusty, distrustful, skeptical old shit and admitting that cagers really aren’t a bad lot, they’re simply people like you and me who happen to choose to lock themselves into inflammable steel boxes rather than pedal freedom machines, I got this happy note:

On Monday one agenda item for the TSC [in Rancho Palos Verdes] to discuss is whether to ban cyclists from the top of Crest Road between Ganado Drive and the domes. The city has received a petition with 100+ signatures from local residents requesting that. I doubt very much that this will pass since it is a public road. The petition claims that the road is unsafe for cyclists and there have been numerous accidents. They also asked if Big Orange has obtained a permit that indemnifies the city from liability. Here is a link to the agenda:


You have to admit this is pretty awesome. We actually have one hundred people who live in an exclusive neighborhood at the top of a hill overlooking the sea who are so concerned about cyclist safety that they have gotten a petition together to ask the city to appropriate public roads for private use.

You may think, “Hasn’t that been tried before?” and you may wonder “What happens when a group of crazies tries to take public property?”

You may even be surprised that a gang of rich cagers are so consumed with the safety of bicyclists that they’re willing to close public roads to bikes to protect us from ourselves, even though we’re convinced that riding our bicycles instead of riding the couch makes us happier, healthier people and better citizens.

This is one where, unfortunately for cyclists, the cagers are right. The best people to decide how to use a road are the ones who live near it. Having cyclists storm up and down Crest at all hours of the day (by the hundreds, if not thousands), having bikers hither and thither, and most importantly, having pedal pushers getting hurt on a road that is simply too dangerous for them as evidenced by the one or two crashes per year are all excellent justifications for closing a road to a particular type of traffic.

The standard that the residents have enunciated is a good one and makes for sound policy. Let’s review:

  1. Close roads that endanger users.

  2. Require groups who insist on dangerous road use to indemnify cities/counties against lawsuits stemming from injuries that occur there.

I will be attending the Monday, July 25 traffic safety meeting to wholeheartedly support this, and hope you will, too. In addition to closing Crest between Ganado and the radar domes, I will be making the following additional proposals for consideration by the committee using principles 1 & 2 above.

  1. Close the 405, 110, and 91 freeways. These roads see thousands of collisions and hundreds of casualties. To date there have been zero bicycle fatalities on any of these roads, so banning them to cars and opening them to pedestrians and cyclists makes sense and will protect millions of vulnerable cagers.
  2. Require every group of more than two people who use a roadway to buy comprehensive indemnification insurance, with immediate application to FedEx, UPS, and every business with more than two vehicles. Also include every household with more than two vehicles.
  3. Close every road in Rancho Palos Verdes to the type of vehicle that has the larger number of collisions, beginning with Crest Rd. between Ganado and the radar domes.*
  4. Since closure/banning are more desirable than improving conditions to make the roads safer, such as paving dangerous cracks and potholes, putting up Bikes May Use the Fuggin’ Lane signage, education, and law enforcement, the city of RPV should apply the closure/banning principle in all of its deliberations:
    • Close the Pacific Ocean.
    • Close the airspace above RPV and preferably the state of California.
    • Close the insane asylum from which the petition signers have obviously escaped.
*Oops! That will mean closing it to cars! Sorry!



Subscribe to this blog now! Special offer ends never! For $2.99 per month you support biketivists who will be showing up at the RPV traffic safety commission on July 26 to demand closure of everything, everywhere in the name of Dog, ‘Murica, and the Nanny State. Click here and select the “subscribe” link in the upper right-hand corner. Thank you!

Tagged: , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,

§ 38 Responses to They really do care about us

  • Michellelandes says:

    Omg just lost my coffee😝

  • Brian C says:

    Due to unfavorable geology in some of those neighborhoods the home owners could also indemnify local and state governments from stabilizing land, fixing roads etc… at worst the neighborhoods can be cleared out and taken over by eminent domain so there is 0 risk and turned into parks.

  • Dave says:

    So they did already ban scateboards, motorized scooters and I forgot what else, so it seems a short leap to non motorized two wheel vehicles. If, by the one hundred to one chance the residents win we domers should (I hate to say it) ignore the illegal law, contest every illegal ticket individually and as a group until enforcement will be so difficult that it would become a non law law.

    • fsethd says:

      It is such a waste of time …

      • Dave says:

        Of course. Get it stopped on the front end is best. Just so you know what side this pessimist is on. I’m with you…us. Sincerely hope nothing comes of this territorial overreach.

  • JF says:

    This would be funny if it weren’t so freaking scary. How ignorant and simple minded are these troglodytes? Wait… do troglodytes have minds?

  • Winemaker says:

    Yesterday, I hauled my fat tush out for a bicycle ride. After I finished (and it is ALL uphill to my home) I stopped on the pavers, next to the mailbox at the top of the driveway, outside the big ol’ motorized gate (got to keep ‘them’ out!). A cager, who was following me on the narrow, skinny, no-shoulder country road that is W.Victoria Dr., stopped and yelled at me, saying “What a wuss! Can’t you make it to the top of the hill?”
    I responded, “I live here.”
    He said, “You should get off the road!”
    I said, “I am off the road. I’m in my driveway!”
    He said, “You should have to pay to use the road, or at least , pay for an insurance policy.”
    By this time, Honey and Lucky were all wagging their tails and happy to see me, so I went inside, showered, and had a glass of red wine.

  • Bearclaw says:

    “Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups” – George Carlin

  • kck says:

    I live in Canada now after 12 years in SoCal. But I do wonder if PV residents are kinda like this:

  • dangerstu says:

    Let’s go big and have them install a fusion powered ski lift, and make the roads all one way, down. Residents would simply park at the bottom, catch the lift and parachute off Marry Poppins style with an umbrella on to there front lawn/cactus garden. Problem solved, who would care about bicycles when you get to parachute home every day.

  • Waldo says:

    This is what happens when electromagnetic radiation from too much Volt-age operation in traffic does to your brains, kids.

    (Jonathan Swift would be proud, Seth.)

  • Naftali says:

    They tried to do this on a road that goes up to the University of British Columbia, a road frequented by thousands of cyclists. They demanded cyclists ride on a narrow path not wide enough for 2 people and where one side drops off a cliff into the ocean. We made a lot of noise and things went back to normal.

  • billdsd says:

    Just point out to them that CVC 21200(a) grants cyclists the same right to the road as the drivers of vehicles, CVC 21 prohibits local authorities from changing the rules of the road except where explicitly permitted in the CVC and CVC 21960 only permits them to ban bicycles from controlled access highways (like freeways). If they ban bicycles from any road that is not a controlled access highway, then they will be in violation of CVC 21.

  • JunkYard says:

    I didn’t make it to Cleveland last week, but I feel this may be even better. Looking forward to attending… as the the mindless bazzillionares attempt to Make PVE SAFE Again. Maybe Harbor City will pay for it?

  • […] Rancho Palos Verdes Neighbors Petition To Close Street To Bikes (Cycling in the South Bay) […]

  • […] el enlace a la nota completa: They really do care about us (Cycling in the South […]

  • William says:

    AQ effects on cognition?

  • […] Bicyclist Skeptical That Plan to Ban Cyclists From Street Is About Safety (PV Cycling) […]

  • darelldd says:

    We should ban children from schools as well. To prevent school shootings, yeah?

What’s this?

You are currently reading They really do care about us at Cycling in the South Bay.


%d bloggers like this: